Skip to main content

Trump’s Iran strategy depends on economic pain. The pain is mounting

(CNN) — Deepening poverty, rising household debt, rampant inflation, hidden unemployment.

The indicators for Iran’s economy signal a deepening crisis on multiple fronts – and at least one official news outlet is not shy about reporting it.

On Sunday, US President Donald Trump made clear that inflicting economic pain on Iran is part of Washington’s strategy.

“We are only semi-negotiating with (Iran). We are just watching Iran with its huge inflation and the fact they have no money,” he said.

The state of Iran’s economy suggests that calculation may not be misplaced.

“Workers are constantly indebted to everyone and everything,” according to the Iranian Labour News Agency (ILNA).

Hossein, a 35-year-old in Tehran who lives with his family, told the agency that he now used “credit apps” on daily commuting or buying a small meal.

President Masoud Pezeshkian has frequently warned of the social consequences of Iran’s economic meltdown, and even state media acknowledge the risk of renewed social unrest.

As long as inflation, unemployment, declining purchasing power and a sense of inequality persist, “social discontent will continue to reproduce itself,” state news agency IRNA reported last month.

Earnings are certainly not keeping up with inflation, according to government statistics. The rate of inflation for food has soared by nearly 130% over the past 12 months; the wages of low-paid workers have grown by less than half of that.

The government has recently warned it may add to the pain by reducing gasoline subsidies, which would trigger a new wave of inflation and potentially lead to higher unemployment.

In the past, raising the price of gasoline triggered protests.

“Our economy today is like a patient suffering from severe bleeding,” according to Albert Baghzian, professor of economics at Tehran University. “Introducing a gasoline shock is akin to delivering a fatal blow to livelihoods,” he told ILNA.

The International Monetary Fund has projected that the Iranian economy will shrink 6% this year, largely due to lost output and physical damage caused by the conflict. At the scale of a national economy, that figure represents an enormous destruction of wealth and livelihoods.

Even a swift resolution of the conflict with the United States would take months to feed into a better economic picture, according to analysts.

Tehran could secure “up to $20 billion of frozen assets, $8 billion a year from a US oil-sales license, and $5-10 billion a year from Strait of Hormuz fees,” according to the Eurasia Group, a think tank.

But “every revenue source carries a serious risk that Washington could shut it off, as it has done before,” Eurasia added.

Buying food on borrowed money

In the meantime, the cost of survival for millions of Iranians just gets higher as the war grinds on.

“Buying food and medicine on installment is no longer a sign of welfare, but an alarm bell of a serious crisis,” ILNA reported this month.

Essentially people are kicking their financial problems down the road.

One 29-year -old part-time editor in Tehran told ILNA that he uses dozens of micro-credit apps “because you can’t afford to pay for it all at once.”

Other workers told ILNA that 40% of their wages are going on rent and another 40% to paying credit instalments.

ILNA said the use of credit apps was also growing among students facing “an uncertain employment outlook (and) unstable income.”

And the app users face fines and fees if they don’t meet repayment deadlines.

“These fines keep piling up. The fear of not having money and falling behind on instalments really tortures a person,” Hossein told ILNA.

Workers focused solely on ‘staying alive’

Many Iranians are on temporary contracts or drift in and out of work, meaning they are even less likely to keep up with repayments. Few have health insurance – and any medical issue can wipe out their income, according to workers who spoke with ILNA.

Rent inflation has also driven thousands to cheaper accommodation on the edge of cities.

The costs of residential construction have doubled in the last year, according to official data – and that feeds through to the rental market. Some local authorities have tried to cap rent increases – in Tehran province to 27% – but such limits are often flouted.

“Rents are continuing to rise, construction costs have surged, purchasing power has weakened and housing transactions remain depressed,” reported another semi-official outlet, ISNA.

Workers’ groups say the government has forgotten them in the midst of the war.

“Iranian workers — and construction workers in particular — have been forgotten and left defenseless to the whims of fate,” said Hassan Ezzati, head of the Baneh Construction Workers’ Trade Association.

“Their efforts are focused on one thing and one thing only: staying alive.”

Ezzati estimated half the construction workforce in Baneh, near Tehran, had no health insurance. Some were so desperate for money that they picked up work as kolbari – smuggling across Iran’s borders, sometimes through minefields from the decade-long Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.

It may be that the Trump administration sees economic desperation as a more likely tool in forcing Iran to compromise than missiles and bombs.

Trump is betting on economic pressure

As negotiations on the Strait of Hormuz drag on, the White House appears to believe that time – and Iran’s deteriorating economy – is on its side.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said last week that over time, Iran’s leverage in the strait of Hormuz would erode as other countries build pipelines to avoid the chokepoint.

Israel’s far-right Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich, has argued that destroying Iran’s economy offers the most effective route towards overthrowing the regime.

The US has huge economic leverage over Iran through sanctions and the ability to block or limit the release of its frozen overseas assets.

“The proceeds from a deal would ease fiscal pressure but would not fully address the public’s deep economic grievances, so political control will still rest on force,” Eurasia concluded.

The published 2026 budget already cuts real spending by 38%.

There is – or at least has been – one bright spot: oil exports. The budget this year targeted exports of 1.77 million barrels per day (bpd) at $55 per barrel. Exports have averaged 1.6 million bpd so far, but at prices in the low $80s.

That silver lining may not last as the US naval blockade bites. No oil has been exported from Kharg Island since the end of July, according to shipping data.

The irony is not lost on labor activist Hassan Ezzati.

“In a country rich in both surface and underground natural resources, the story of workers’ lives is an endless chronicle of suffering,” he told ILNA.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

Democrats like AOC are trying to shrug off their ‘woke’ era. That’s bad for our politics

(CNN) — Democrats would very much like to figure out how to explain away some of the far-left things they said circa 2019 and 2020 — a period often referred to as “peak woke,” “woke 1.0” or “woke 1.”Kamala Harris struggled with this during her 2024 presidential campaign (think: some transgender policies), and now it looms over some key 2026 races.Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Sunday offered a prescription: Laugh it off.“I have a local city councilman that has this saying: ‘Woke 1 was crazy,’” the New York congresswoman said on ABC’s “This Week,” before laughing.Ocasio-Cortez, who once supported defunding the police, went on to suggest Covid had expanded the range of acceptable political discourse. But she said that it’s “not rhetoric that we would use today.”This might be a politically deft explanation for Ocasio-Cortez and her ilk. But it’s a bad one for the body politic. It continues a troubling trend of major politicians asking Americans not to take the things they say — or more specifically, that they once said — at face value.It’s a perfect recipe for a continued decline in honesty and accountability.An increasingly common argument from DemocratsOcasio-Cortez was quoting New York City Council Member Chi Ossé. Back in May, he responded to a critic who unearthed a 2021 comment of his by saying simply, “Woke 1 was crazyyyy.”The same week, former Biden White House aide Yemisi Egbewole credited Texas Senate candidate James Talarico for distancing himself from his past woke comments. “Peak woke got weird. It’s okay to say that!” Egbewole said.And this weekend, perhaps the one 2026 Democratic candidate with the biggest “peak woke” problem echoed Ocasio-Cortez’s comment.Francesca Hong is the favorite in Tuesday’s Wisconsin gubernatorial primary, but her past statements about abolishing police and canceling Thanksgiving, among others, have a lot of Democrats freaked out about her potential nomination.“I had some hot takes, some bad takes on Twitter, but when you’re a business owner running a restaurant during Covid, trying to pay bills as a student, you’re putting feelings out there into the world,” Hong told Politico. “But I’ve evolved, I’ve learned.”A growing epidemicAppearing after Ocasio-Cortez on “This Week,” Republican former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie took exception to her explanation.“After listening to the congresswoman, why should anyone trust her?” Christie said. He added that Republicans would “hold people like” Ocasio-Cortez and Hong “to what they’ve said over their careers, not what they’re trying to conveniently evolve into now.”But Christie is, to put it lightly, an imperfect messenger on this.Not only has he repeatedly changed his stance on President Donald Trump, but he has basically acknowledged having said things about Trump for political expediency.After running hard against Trump and then embracing him in 2016, Christie explained: “Yes, I disagreed with Donald Trump at the time. Big shock. I was running against him. … Of course I disagreed with him, because I was running against him.”Then, after Christie broke with Trump in 2021, the New Jersey Republican tried to disown the compliments he paid to Trump by saying he reasoned Trump would be the GOP nominee, and that he wanted to make the best of the situation.But it’s hardly just Christie. This has become an epidemic in US politics, on both sides of the aisle.The late GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham had repeatedly suggested his pro-Trump conversion was about getting things accomplished rather than what he truly believed. “If you know anything about me, it’d be odd not to do this,” he said at one point.Vice President JD Vance in both private messages and public comments has cited political calculations for his Trump stances. He told Time magazine when launching his Ohio Senate campaign in 2021: “If I actually care about these people and the things I say I care about, I need to just suck it up and support him.”Secretary of State Marco Rubio has explained comments like calling Trump a “con man” in 2016 by saying, “I didn’t know him when I ran in 2016, didn’t know him as a person.”And in 2020, Harris explained her personal attacks on Joe Biden’s past position on busing by saying, “It was a debate.” When asked if that meant she didn’t mean what she said, Harris repeated, “It was a debate,” and suggested that those kinds of comments are what you say in that forum.The most prominent example of this in recent years is Trump’s years-long assault on the truth — and his supporters defense of it. When confronted with his tens of thousands of false and misleading claims, some allies have repeatedly urged people to take Trump “seriously” rather than “literally.”Why it’s so bad for politicsImplicit in these arguments is that maybe these politicians didn’t believe what they said in real time — that they were just saying stuff. But the question then becomes: Does that also apply to what they’re saying today?Seriously-not-literally is a great set up for Trump because he can decide retroactively which comments he meant and what he was just saying for political effect.But that arrangement removes the onus on politicians to be studied stewards of the public interest — to do the hard work of coming to their positions through a sober review of the issues. And it makes it virtually impossible to hold them accountable.And once that accountability is out the window and Americans no longer demand it, politicians are liable to say whatever they think is most advantageous at the time.That’s what they do now, to some extent. But formalizing a system where comments from five days or five years ago can be explained away as unimportant ramblings from another political moment feels like a bad idea.It would be better to reward politicians who have the foresight and wisdom to take positions that they actually believe in and can stick to — and can stand the political test of time.The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
Read Next Story